- 1 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE3D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION No.107283 OF2023(LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI SHRISHAIL S/O. GANGAPPA BOLANNAWAR, AGE:
62. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE No.421B/9/7/3, MRUTHYUNJAYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, D.C. OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102.
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 102, REPRESENED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED13 10-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.4 /TOWN MUNICIPAL - 2 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 COUNCIL, BAILHONGAL BEARING No.BLH-BL-52-2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE ALTERNATIVE ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO POSITIVELY CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED1805-2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1 The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 13/10/2022 passed by Respondent No.4/Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal bearing No.BLH-BL-52-2022-23 vide Annexure-G; in the alternative b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner to positively consider the application filed by the Petitioner dated 18/05/2023 vide Annexure-H; c. Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner’s father was the original owner of land bearing R.S.No.392/4 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, situated at Bailahongal, Taluk and District - Belagavi. The father of the petitioner applied for conversion of land - 3 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes. As regards which, an official memorandum dated 31.03.2016 came to be issued permitting conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural commercial (petrol pump) purposes on 30.03.2016.
3. The petitioner established a petrol pump on a portion of the property measuring 14,436.30 sq. ft. and proposed to use the balance land for putting up commercial building and as such, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 for grant of building plan sanction for commercial purpose, which came to be rejected by respondent No.4 on the ground that the conversion order was only for non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes thereby meaning that the said order did not permit the usage of land for commercial purposes, which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court.
4. Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land of the petitioner comes within the jurisdiction of the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal (for short “TMC”), the said TMC has assessed the - 4 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 property to tax, issued property No.418/392/7/P-4 and has been collecting property tax in relation thereto.
5. The property having lost its agricultural character, coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC, there is no requirement for the petitioner to once again apply for and get conversion changed from non-agricultural commercial (Petrol Bunk) purposes to non-agricultural commercial purposes only.
6. On that basis, he submits that the endorsement at Annexure-G, which has been issued is contrary to the applicable law and in that regard he relies on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co.Pvt.Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) dated 21.02.2018, which on appeal has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100124/2018 (Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority, Navanagar v. The State of Karnataka and another) vide judgment dated 22.10.2018.-. 5 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 7. His submission is that once the land comes within the urban agglomeration or within the municipal limits, section 95 to 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “KLR Act”) are not applicable and in this case, the land already having been converted from agricultural to commercial albeit for petrol bunk purposes, the land has lost agricultural character and as such, now the TMC cannot insist on restricting the usage of land for petrol pump purposes only and ought to have permitted the petitioner for using it for commercial purposes. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.
8. Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the conversion order being restricted to non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes, the TMC is bound to implement the conversion order to such restricted purposes and commercial purpose cannot be permitted and as such he supports the impugned endorsement, which is challenged in this case.-. 6 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 9. Heard Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the papers.
10. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
10. 1. Whether the agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or would the said land be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes?. 10.2. Whether in the present case, the land having already been converted for non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and the land coming within the jurisdiction of TMC, could the TMC restrict the usage of the property for petrol bunk purposes only disregarding the conversion for non- agricultural commercial purposes?. 10.3. What order?.
11. I answer the above points as under:
12. Answer to point No.1: Whether the agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal - 7 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or would the said land be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes?. 12.1. This issue is no longer res-integra. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 in W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) has categorically came to a conclusion that once the land comes within the City Municipal Council area, conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose is not required and in this regard reference was made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in M.Muninarayana Swamy and another v. State of Karnataka1 and in the case of Sri.S.Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka and others2. 1 ILR2012KAR34282 W.P.No.5059/2012 (D.D.29.08.2012) - 8 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 12.2. In S.Krishnappa’s case, this Court had categorically came to a conclusion that the provision of the KLR Act have no application to the lands that fall within the territorial limits of Brihut Benagaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP). 12.3. BBMP being a Municipal Corporation under the KMC Act, 1976, a TMC occupies similar position as a Corporation and as such, the very same principle would apply to even a TMC. Hence, the provision of KLR Act would have no application to the lands falling within the territorial limits of a TMC. 12.4. In that view of the matter, there would be no requirement for a land owner of the land coming within the limits of TMC to seek conversion of the land under Section 95 of the KLR Act from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes once the land comes within the limits of TMC. 12.5. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within - 9 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would not require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, section 95 to 97 thereof not being applicable to such land the said land would be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes.
13. Answer to Point No.2: Whether in the present case, the land having already been converted for non- agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and the land coming within the jurisdiction of TMC, could the TMC restrict the usage of the property for petrol bunk purposes only disregarding the conversion for non-agricultural commercial purposes?. 13.1. Irrespective of my answer to point No.1, in the present case, the land of the petitioner has already been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes vide official memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner dated 31.03.2016 i.e. the land was converted for non-agricultural purposes before it came within the TMC limits by following the due procedure under - 10 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 Section 95 of the KLR Act. Thus, the said land has not been assessed to tax as an agricultural land but has now been assessed to tax on the basis of the Municipal number allotted to the said property by the TMC. 13.2. The artificial distinction that the TMC wishes to draw between a land converted for non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and a land converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose is not sustainable and is an effort or an exercise in futility inasmuch as it is very clear from the official memorandum itself that the land has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose albeit for petrol bunk. 13.3. What is important to be considered is the conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and not what has been stated in bracket as “petrol bunk” for the TMC to contend that the usage of land is restricted to petrol bunk purpose. Furthermore, the petitioner has already established - 11 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 a petrol bunk in an extent measuring 14,436.30 sq. ft., the land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, the balance land is proposed to be used by the petitioner for commercial purposes. 13.4. Thus, in my considered opinion, the TMC cannot put the cart before the horse and restrict the usage of land only for petrol bunk purpose after the petrol bunk has already been established. On this ground also, the endorsement issued by the TMC falls foul of the applicable law. 13.5. As such, I answer point No.2 by holding that the TMC cannot seek to restrict the usage of land of the petitioner to only petrol bunk when the land has been converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose.
14. Answer to point No.3: In view of my answer to points 1 and 2 above, I pass the following: ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.-. 12 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:129 WP No.107283 of 2023 ii) A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 13.10.2012 issued by respondent No.4-TMC, Bailhongal vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed. iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to consider the conversion order already issued taking into consideration the land coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC and issue such building licence as eligible by following the building bye-laws applicable to the said property within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE YAN List No.:
1. Sl No.:
4.